Order No.  16  dt.  13/06/2017

          The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a whirlpool refrigerator, model no.IC375AGB5 on receiving a tax invoice no. DT/5694 dated on 27.06.2013 against invoice price of Rs 80500/-from M/s Khosla Electronics (P) Ltd by  spot payment of Rs.6,500/- in cash and  the balance amount against previous transaction-cum-advance receipt no. DT/5678 by Rs.74,000/- 27.06.2013. Complainant alleged that complainant had suffered much trouble with the refrigerator and its functioning was intermittently out of order with different trouble. According to complainant the refrigerator was attended by attendants of the o.ps  and they assured the complainant that it’s normal functioning would be resumed shortly. But in every occasion the problem in it could not be mitigated by the attempts of the attendants, within one year of warranty period. Complainant alleged that the set was defective from the very beginning and the defect was inherently existed in it. After prolonged harassment and inexplicable mental agony  the complainant compelled to lodge the complaint alleging deficiency in service seeking  relief as prayed for. The complainant sought for the direction i) to replace the defective set with new set or to refund the purchase price of Rs80500/- with interest of @15% per annum till the date of final payment ii) to pay compensation of Rs30,000/- &  iii) to pay cost of Rs20,000/-

          Op-1 & op-3 appeared before the forum and contested the case by submitting wv. Ld lawyer of o.p-.1 and op-3 argued that the complainant has  failed to annex any “service request form” which had been given by the service engineer after attending the “service calls” lodged by the complainant . Again there has been no annexure appended to the instant complaint petition to bring out the fact that a complaint was lodged within the period of warranty. It is pertinent to state here that the extract of the electronic mail does not contain any date . O.p. being unaware of the alleged defects could not take appropriate steps towards repairing the said alleged defects, if any, without inspecting the refrigerator in question. The o.p.1 and 3 stated and submitted that the onus to prove manufacturing defect is on the complainant. The complainant has failed to bring on record any expert opinion from where it can be ascertained that the said refrigerator in question has any inherent manufacturing defect. The present case is highly frivolous, concocted, misconceived, palpably untrue and as such bad in law and hence the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.  

Decision with reasons

All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts

          The complainant purchased the whirlpool refrigerator from o.p.2 on June 27, 2013 having model no.IC375ACGB5/32LA6200  as mentioned in the Tax Invoice no.DT/5694  dtd 27.06.2013 But in the Tax Invoice there is no serial no. of refrigerator. It is mentioned in the warranty card as ZNE 122610317 but with different model no. as 13858. This warranty  card is without the stamp and seal of the dealer from which it was purchased. Again there is no signature of the complainant herself.

          Complainant in her complaint petition stated about  the warranty period  having  duration of one year. But the warranty card enclosed to invoice as enclo-3 speaks for warranty period of 5 years. Therefore there is no relation between the warranty card enclosed and the tax invoice submitted. Again the consideration amount in purchasing the refrigerator was paid by payment of Rs.6,500/- in cash and the Rs.74,000/- by submitting an advance receipt, the history of which had  not been expressed by the complainant.Complainant had not  furnished any job-sheet, used to be supplied by the attendant at time of attending the problems for which  they were called for. Moreover complainant had not proved its  defect by submitting any experts opinion or by demanding the necessity of laboratory test of the refrigerator.

          Considering the above points in view we hold that complainant has failed  to prove the allegation raised by her in the complaint by submitting any material proof.

Hence ordered

          that the case  no. 445/2014 is dismissed without  cost on contest against o.p-1 and o.p- 3 and  ex-parte against the o.p.no.2.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.